Privacy after Puttaswamy: Constitutional Boundaries of State Data Collection under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023
DOI:
https://doi.org/10.34257/LJRCST225917UKKeywords:
2023, democratic accountability, Digital Personal Data Protection Act, Informational Self-Determination, Proportionality, Right to Privacy, State SurveillanceAbstract
The recognition of privacy as a fundamental right by the Supreme Court of India in Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India marked a decisive shift in Indian constitutional jurisprudence, particularly in the context of an increasingly data-driven State. In the aftermath of this landmark judgment, the enactment of the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 represents India’s first comprehensive statutory framework governing personal data processing. However, the Act raises significant constitutional questions, especially concerning the breadth of exemptions granted to the State for purposes such as sovereignty, public order, and national security. This paper examines whether the regime of State data collection under the Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 conforms to the constitutional standards articulated in Puttaswamy, particularly the doctrines of proportionality, necessity, and procedural safeguards. The research problem centres on the apparent tension between the constitutional right to privacy and the statutory discretion accorded to the executive. Adopting a doctrinal and comparative methodology, the study analyses constitutional jurisprudence, statutory provisions, and comparative data protection frameworks, notably those in the European Union and other common law jurisdictions. The paper finds that while the Act strengthens data protection vis-à-vis private actors, it falls short in adequately constraining State power. It concludes that without clearer statutory limits and robust oversight mechanisms, the constitutional promise of privacy risks being diluted in practice.
References
Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (2022) Digital India Programme: Vision and Governance Framework.
H.M. Seervai (2013) Constitutional Law of India.
Reetika Khera (2017) Dissent on Aadhaar: Big data meets big brother. 52(50), 38–41.
Supreme Court of India (2017) Justice K.S. Puttaswamy (Retd.) v. Union of India. 10, 1.
(2023) Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023 (India).
Justice B.N. Srikrishna (2018) A Free and Fair Digital Economy: Protecting Privacy, Empowering Indians.
Gautam Bhatia (2019) State surveillance and the right to privacy in India. 31(1), 1–25.
M.P. Jain (2022) Indian Constitutional Law.
(2016) General Data Protection Regulation (EU) 2016/679.
Supreme Court of India (1954) M.P. Sharma v. Satish Chandra. 300.
Supreme Court of India (1963) Kharak Singh v. State of Uttar Pradesh. 1295.
Supreme Court of India (1975) Gobind v. State of Madhya Pradesh. 2, 148.
Supreme Court of India (1997) People’s Union for Civil Liberties v. Union of India. 1, 301.
Gautam Bhatia (2019) The Transformative Constitution.
D.Y. Chandrachud (2018) Privacy and the Constitution. 1, 1–12.
Apar Gupta (2018) Privacy and surveillance after Puttaswamy. 53(38), 45–49.
Aharon Barak (2012) Proportionality: Constitutional Rights and Their Limitations.
Vrinda Bhandari (2020) Proportionality in Indian constitutional law. 32(2), 1–28.
European Court of Human Rights (2008) S. and Marper v. United Kingdom. 1581.
Reetika Khera (2019) Aadhaar and social welfare: Promise and perils. 54(5), 38–43.
Lyria Bennett Moses, Janet Chan (2018) Algorithmic prediction in policing. 37(1), 1–16.
European Court of Human Rights (2015) Roman Zakharov v. Russia. (47143/06).
Neil Richards (2013) The dangers of surveillance. 126(7), 1934–1965.
Gautam Bhatia (2020) Executive power and privacy in India. 32(1), 1–24.
David Lyon (2001) Surveillance Society: Monitoring Everyday Life.
D.Y. Chandrachud (2018) Privacy as a constitutional value. 1, 1–10.
Graham Greenleaf (2023) Global data privacy laws 2023: India’s new framework. 176, 1–5.
Ministry of Electronics and Information Technology (2023) Digital Personal Data Protection Act, 2023: Explanatory Notes.
Gautam Bhatia (2023) The Data Protection Board and executive control. 7(2), 145–160.
Apar Gupta (2023) State exemptions under India’s data protection law. 58(36), 12–15.
Ministry of Law and Justice (2023) Statement of Objects and Reasons, Digital Personal Data Protection Bill.
Supreme Court of India (1982) A.K. Roy v. Union of India. 1, 271.
Supreme Court of India (1966) Ram Manohar Lohia v. State of Bihar. 740.
Supreme Court of India (1978) Maneka Gandhi v. Union of India. 1, 248.
Gautam Bhatia (2023) Executive discretion and data protection in India. 7(2), 145–160.
Supreme Court of India (1951) In re Delhi Laws Act. 332.
(2012) Charter of Fundamental Rights of the European Union, 2012/C 326/02.
(2014) Digital Rights Ireland Ltd v Minister for Communications, Joined Cases C-293/12 and C-594/12.
(2016) Tele2 Sverige AB v Post-och telestyrelsen, Case C-203/15.
(2016) Investigatory Powers Act, 2016 (United Kingdom).
European Court of Human Rights (2021) Big Brother Watch v United Kingdom. 58170/13.
(2018) Carpenter v. United States, 585 U.S. ___.
Orin Kerr (2018) The Fourth Amendment and new technologies. 132(2), 427–486.
Gautam Bhatia (2020) Privacy, transparency and accountability in the digital state. 4(3), 245–262.
Frank Pasquale (2015) The Black Box Society: The Secret Algorithms That Control Money and Information.
Apar Gupta (2023) Institutional design and data protection in India. 58(42), 18–21.
Gautam Bhatia (2023) Institutional independence and data protection governance. 7(2), 145–160.
Downloads
Published
Issue
Section
License
Copyright (c) 2026 Authors and Global Journals Private Limited

This work is licensed under a Creative Commons Attribution 4.0 International License.
